# + 2

(,1 1/,1(

Citation: 71 Fed. Reg. 44587 2006

Content downloaded/printed from HeinOnline (http://heinonline.org) Fri Jul 30 17:43:54 2010

-- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance of HeinOnline's Terms and Conditions of the license agreement available at http://heinonline.org/HOL/License

-- The search text of this PDF is generated from uncorrected OCR text.

### Federal Register/Vol. 71, No. 151 /Monday,, August 7, 2006/Rules and Regulations

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, orby the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any oneyear. Though this rule would notresult in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects ofthis rule elsewhere in the preamble. Taking ofPrivateProperty

This rule will not effect a taking of private property orotherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
Civil Justice Reform

This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) ofExecutive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

ProtectionofChildren

Wehave analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not

an economically significant rule and • would not create an environmental risk
to health or riskto safety that might disproportionately affect children'

IndianTribalGovernments

This rule does nothave tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does nothave a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, onthe relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes,

or on the distribution ofpower and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Energy Effects

We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a "significant
energy action" under that order, because it is not a "significant regulatory action" under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect

on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator ofthe Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant
energy action.Therefore, it does not require a statement ofEnergy Effects under Executive Order 13211.
Technical Standards

The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA),(15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards intheir regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation ofwhy using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., specifications ofmaterials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies.

This rule does notuse technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use ofvoluntary consensus standards.

Environment

Wehave analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of

a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 ofthe Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), ofthe Instruction, from further environmental documentation. Under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), ofthe Instruction, an "Environmental Analysis Check List" and a "Categorical Exclusion Determination" are notrequired for this rule.

List ofSubjects in 33 CFR Part117

Bridges. Regulations

0 For thereasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 117 as follows:

PART 117-DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS

m1.The authority citation forpart 117 continues to read as follows:

Authority:33 U.S.C. 499; Department of Homeland SecurityDelegation No. 0170.1; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g); Section 117.255 also issued under authority ofPub. L.102-587, 106 Stat. 5039.

N 2.From August 7,2006 through 7p.m.

on October 29, 2006, §117.287(d)(3) is suspended and (d)(5) is added to read as follows:



### §117.287 GulfIntracoastalWaterway.

(d) * * * 

### (5)Pinellas Bayway Structure "E" (SR 679)bridge, mile 113 at St. Petersburg Beach. The draw shall open on signal, except that from 9 am. to 7 p.m. the

- draw need open only onthe hour and 30 minutes past.the hour.

Dated: July 17, 2006. D.W. Kunkel, Rear Admiral,U.S. CoastGuard,Commander, Seventh CoastGuard District. [FR Doc. 

### E6-12528 Filed 8-4-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P



### ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-RO9-OAR-2006-0322; FRL-8190-2] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Las Vegas Valley Carbon Monoxide Attainment Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule.


### SUMMARY: EPA-is taking final action to approve arevised attainmbnt plan, as modified to withdraw the motor vehicle emissions budget for 2030, for the Las Vegas Valley carbon monoxide nonattainment area as arevision to the Nevada state implementation plan. The revised attainment plan, as modified, includes revised base year and future
year emissions inventories and arevised demonstration of continued attainment ofthe carbon monoxide national ambient air quality standard inLas Vegas Valley through 2020 based on the most recent emissions models and planning assumptions and establishes

new motor vehicle emissions budgets. EPA is acting under section 110(k) of the Clean AirAct, which obligates the Agency to take action on State submittals ofrevisions to state implementation plans. The intended effect ofthis approval action is to update the carbon monoxide motor vehicle emissions budgets in the Las Vegas area and thereby make them available for the purposes of transportation conformity. DATES: This rule is effective on " September 6, 2006. 

### 44587

HeinOnline -- 71 Fed. Reg. 44587 2006

### Federil -Register/-VoL 71; No. '151 /Mbnda' -Aufgust 7, 2006/Rheds. and.-Re§ulatibns

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2006-0322. All documents in the docket are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available,
e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other information, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only inhard copy. Publicly available 'docket materials are available either electronically in http:// www.regulations.govorin hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. To inspect the hard copy materials; please schedule an appointment during normal business hours with the contact listed inthe FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karina O'Connor, EPA Region IX, telephone number: (775) 833-1276; fax number: (775) 833-1276; e-mail address: oconnor.karina@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, "we," "us" and "our" refer to EPA.
Table ofContents 1.What Action Did EPAPropose? II.Is the Background for This Rule? III. What Comments Did WeReceive on the Proposed Action? IV.What Is Our Final Action? V.Statutory andExecutive Order Reviews

I. What Action Did EPA Propose?

On May 9, 2006 (71 FR 26910), under section 110(k) ofthe Clean Air Act (CAA or "Act"), we proposed to approve the CarbonMonoxideState ImplementationPlanRevision,Las Vegas ValleyNonattainment Area, ClarkCounty,Nevada (October 2005), which was adopted by the Clark County Board ofCommissioners on October 4, 2005 and submitted to EPA by NDEP on February 14, 2006, as a revision to the Nevada SIP on the condition that Clark County and the State ofNevada withdraw the 2030 motor vehicle emission budget, or, in the alternative,

we propose to disapprove the plan. Specifically, we proposed to approve the plan's revised base year and projected emission inventories and modeling demonstration ofcontinued attainment ofthe CO standard through 2020. Our proposed disapproval was based.on our finding that the plan does
not demonstrate continued attainment in year 2030 because it lacks micro-scale modeling analysis for the environs of the County's airports in that year.

Furthermore, we found that, with the exception ofthe 2030 budget, the new motor vehicle emissions budgets established in the plan are also consistent with continued attainment of the CO NAAQS in Las Vegas Valley. Thus, we proposed to approve the motor vehicle emissions budgets from the 2005 CO plan for 2006, 2010, 2015, and 2020

as meeting the purposes ofsection 176(c)(1) and the transportation conformity rule at40 CFR 93, subpart A contingent upon the withdrawal ofthe 2030 budget by Clark County and the State ofNevada, and to disapprove the submitted budgets inthe 2005 CO plan, in the alternative, ifno such withdrawal

was made.

As discussed below, the State of Nevada has submitted a second SIP revision that withdraws the 2030 budget, and we received no comments

on our proposal, and thus, we are taking final action to approve the 2005 CO plan, as amended, and to approve the related motor vehicle emissionsbudgets for 2006, 2010, 2015, and 2020.


### II. What Is the Background for This Rule?

Based on monitoring data from the mid-1970's, EPA designated Las Vegas Valley ' as a carbon monoxide (CO) nonattainment area under the Clean Air Act (CAA or "Act"), as amended in 1977. See 43 FR 8962, 9012 (March 3, 1978). Inresponse, Clark County and the State ofNevada adopted and implemented various air quality plans and programs, including a vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M) program, to reduce CO levels inLas Vegas Valley, butthe CO national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS)

were not attained by the then-applicable 1987 attainment date. [EPA approved these plans andprograms at various times as revisions to the Nevada state implementation plan (SIP).]

The CAA was significantly amended by Congress in 1990 to establish new .attainmentdates and planning and control requirements for areas that had failed to attain theNAAQS under the 1977 Amendments. Under the 1990 Amended Act,Las Vegas Valley was initially classified as a "moderate" nonattainment area for CO butwas later reclassified as a "serious" CO nonattainment area afterhaving missed the attainment date formoderate areas.

In response to the "moderate", and then "serious," nonattainment classification and related CAA requirements, Clark County and the State ofNevada adopted and implemented new air quality plans and

IThe boundaries ofthe Las Vegas Valley CO nonattainment area ar6 defined by reference to State hydrographic area#212, which covers the central portion ofClarkCounty. See 40 CFR 81.329. programs, including a,"serious" area attainment plan, the CarbonMonoxide StateImplementationPlan,Las Vegas ValleyNonattainment Area, Clark County,Nevada (August 2000) ("2000 CO plan"). In 2004, we approved the 2000 CO plan and related motor vehicle emissions budgets for years 2000, 2010 and 2020. See 69 FR 56351, September 21, 2004.

Inresponse to changes inthe EPAapproved motor vehicle emission factor model and higher-than-forecast increases in population growth in Las Vegas Valley, the Clark County Department ofAir Quality and Environmental Management (DAQEM), in cohsultation with the Regional Transportation Commission ofSouthern Nevada (RTC), undertook a comprehensive air quality planning effort to review and update the 2000 CO plan and the associated motor vehicle emission budgets to maintain consistency forfuture transportation conformity findings. The planning efforts culminated in the preparation of the CarbonMonoxideState ImplementationPlanReyision,Las Vegas ValleyNonattainment Area, ClarkCounty,Nevada (October 2005) ("2005 CO plan"). The Clark County Board ofCommissioners adopted the 2005 CO plan on October 4, 2005, and the Nevada Division ofEnvironmental Protection (NDEP) submitted the plan to EPA as a revision to the Nevada SIP on February 14, 2006.

The 2005 CO plan, as adopted on October 4, 2005 and submitted-on February 14, 2006, includes revised base
year and future year emissions inventories and arevised demonstration ofcontinued attainment ofthe CO NAAQS in Las Vegas Valley through 2030 based on the most recent emissions models and planning assumptions and establishes new motor vehicle emissions budgets. The inventories and modeling demonstration included in the 2005 CO plan relate to analysis years 1996, 2006, 2010, 2015, 2020 and 2030. The plan allocates almost all ofthe estimated safety margins 2 in years 2006, 2010, 2015, 2020, and 2030 to the on-road
motor vehicle emissions category. Based

on our review and evaluation ofNDEP's February 14, 2006 SIP revision submittal, we proposed to approve the 2005 CO plan on the condition that

2The term "safety margin" refers to the amount by which the total projeted emissions from all

sources ofa given pollutant are less than the total emissions that would satisfy theapplicable requirement forreasonable further progress, attainment or maintenance. See 40 CFR 93.101. The 2005 CO plan also allocates a small portion ofthe safety margins to certain point sources. 

### 44588

HeinOnline -- 71 Fed. Reg. 44588 2006

### Federal Register/Vol. 71, No. 151/Monday,. August 7, 2006 /Rules and Regulations

Clark County and the State ofNevada withdraw the 2030 motor vehicle 

### emission budget, or, inthe alternative, to disapprove the plan. See 71 FR 26910 (May 9, 2006).



### As stated in our proposed rule published on May 9, 2006, our objection to the 2030 budget was premised on our 

### findingthat the plan lacks micro-scale modeling analysis forthe environs of the County's airports inthat year. In
response, on May 2, 2006, Clark County 

### adopted a revision tothe 2005 CO plan that involved withdrawal ofthe 2030 budget and revision and replacement of the specific section ofthe plan (section 7.3, page 7-2, "Mobile Source Emissions Budget") that identifies the emissions budgets. On May 12, 2006, NDEP submitted the amended page of the plan to EPA as a SIP revision together with evidence ofadoption of this amendment by the Clark County Board ofCommissioners. We have reviewed the May 12, 2006 submittal, and find that it meetsthe condition we placed on the proposed approval ofthe 2005 CO plan, and thus we are taking final action today to approve the plan,

as amended.

Please see the proposed rule at 71 FR 26910 (May 9, 2006) for more information about the background leading up to the submittal ofthe 2005 CO plan and ourreview and evaluation ofthe plan.

IH. What Comments Did We Receive on 

### the ProposedAction?

EPA provided a 30-day.review and comment period onthe proposal published inthe Federal Register on May 9, 2006 (71 FR 26910). We received



### no comments onour proposed rulemaking.
IV. WhatIs OurFinal Action?

Pursuantto section 110(k) ofthe Act and forthe reasons set forth above and inthe proposed rule, we are approving the Carbon MonoxideState ImplementatibnPlanRevision,Las Vegas ValleyNonattainment Area, ClarkCounty,Nevada (October 2005), as adopted on October 4, 2005 by the Clark 

### County Board of Commissioners and submitted byNDEP on February 14, 2006, and as amended by the board on May 2, 2006 and submitted byNDEP on May 12, 2006, as arevision to the 

### Nevada SIP.

Our approval is based on our evaluation ofthe plan submittals and determination that the plan'srevised base year and projected emission 

### inventories and modeling demonstration ofcontinued attainment ofthe CO standard through 2020 reflect 

### acceptable methods and the most recent models and planning assumptions.

Furthermore, we find that the new motorvehicle emissions budgets established inthe plan andreflecting scaled inventories are also consistent with continued attainment ofthe CO NAAQS in Las Vegas Valley. Thus, we
are approving the following motor vehicle emissions budgets from the 2005 CO plan, asmodified by the withdrawal ofthe 2030 budget as setforth in NDEP's February 12, 2006 submittal, as meeting thepurposes ofsection 176(c)(1) and the transportation conformity rule at 40 CFR part 93, subpart A:

CO MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSIONS

BUDGET [December weekday]

Year Tons per day

2006

.............................................. 623 2010-

............................................. 690 2015

.............................................. 768 2020

.............................................. 817

Our action today in approving the above budgets has the effect ofreplacing the previously-approved CO motor vehicle emissions budgets from the Las Vegas Valley 2000 CO plan forthe purposes oftransportation conformity.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is
not a "significant regulatory action" and therefore is not subject to review by the Office ofManagement and Budget. For thisreason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, "Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use" (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This actionmerely approves

an air quality plan as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposedby
state law. Accordingly, the 

### -Administratorcertifies that thisrule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number ofsmall entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does notimpose any additional enforceable dutybeyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or' 

### significantly oruniquely affect small governments, as described inthe .Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub.L. 104-4). 

### This rulealso doesnot havetribal implicationsbecause it willnot have a substantial direct effect on one ormore Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, oron the distribution of 

### power andresponsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes,

as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, NovQmber 9, 2000). This 

### action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have 

### substantial direct effects onthe States,

onthe relationship between the national government and the States, or onthe distribution ofpower and responsibilities among the various levels ofgovernment, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely 

### approves a state plan implementing a Federal standard and does not alterthe relationship orthe distribution ofpower 

### andresponsibilities established inthe Clean AirAct. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045, 

### "Protection of Childrenfrom Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks" (62FR 19885, April 23, 1997), 

### because itis not economically significant.

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's 

### role isto approve state choices, provided thatthey meet the criteria of the Clean AirAct. In thiscontext, in the absence ofa priorexisting requirement forthe State touse voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authbrity
to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. Itwould thus be inconsistent with applicable law for 

### EPA, when itreviews a SIPsubmission, touse VCS inplace of aSIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of 

### the Clean AirAct. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) ofthe 

### NationalTechnology Transfer and Advancement Act of1995 (15U.S.C. 272 note) donot apply.This ruledoes notimpose an information collection burden under the provisions ofthe Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

### U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

### that before a rulemay take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit arule report, which includes a 

### copy ofthe rule, to each Houseofthe Congress and to the Comptroller General 

### ofthe United States. EPA will submit a reportcontaining thisrule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, 

### the U.S. House ofRepresentatives, and the Comptroller General ofthe United States prior to publication ofthe rule in 

### the Federal Register. A majorrule 44589

HeinOnline -- 71 Fed. Reg. 44589 2006

### Federal Register/Vol. 71, No. 151/Monday, August 7, 2006/Rules and Regulations

cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published inthe Federal Register. This action is not a "major rule" as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Under section 307(b)(1) ofthe CAA, petitions forjudicial review ofthis action must be filed in the United States Court ofAppeals for the appropriate circuit by October 6, 2006. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator ofthis final rule does not affect the finality ofthis rule for the purposes ofjudicial review nor does it extend thetime within which a petition forjudicial review may be filed,.and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later inproceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List ofSubjects in 40 CFRPart52

Environmental protection,Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: June 20, 2006. Wayne Nastri, Regional Administrator, RegionLX.
0Part 52, chapter I,title 40 ofthe Code ofFederal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

m 1. Theauthority citation forpart 52 continues to read as follows:

Authority:42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Subpart DD-Nevada

0 2. Section 52.1470 isamended by adding paragraphs (c)(57) and (c)(58) to read as follows:
§52.1470 Identificationof plan.

(c) * * * (57)The following plan revision was submitted on February 14, 2006, by the Governor's designee.

(i) Incorporation by reference. (A) Clark County Department ofAir Quality and Environmental Management.

(1) Carbon Monoxide State Implementation Plan Revision, Las Vegas Valley Nonattainment Area, Clark County, Nevada, adopted on October 4, 2005 by the Clark County Board of Commissioners (with the exception of section 7.3 (page 7-2), "Mobile Source Emissions Budget").

(58) The following plan revision was submitted onMay 12, 2006, by the Governor's designee.

(i) Incorporation by reference. (A)Clark County Department ofAir Quality and Environmental Management. (1)Section 7.3 (page 7-2), "Mobile Source Emissions Budget" ofthe Carbon Monoxide State Implementation Plan Revision, Las Vegas Valley Nonattainment Area, Clark County, Nevada, adopted on May 2, 2006 by the Clark County Board of Commissioners. [FRDoc. E6-12761 Filed 8-4-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part660
[Docket No. 051014263-6028-03; I.D. 080106A]

Fisheries OffWest Coast States; Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery; End ofthe PacificWhiting Primary Season forthe Shore-based Sector andthe Resumption ofTrip Limits

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Temporary rule; request for
comments.
SUMMARY: NMFS announces the end of the 2006 primary season for the Pacific whiting (whiting)shore-based sector at 6 p.m. local time (i.t.) August 2, 2006, because the allocation is projected to be reached. This action is intended to keep the harvest ofwhiting atthe 2006 allocation levels. DATES: Effective from 6 p.m. Lt. August 2, 2006, until January 1,2007.

Comments will be accepted through August 22, 2006. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by [docket number and/or RIN number], by any ofthe following methods:

* E-mail:. WhitingSBclosure2006.nwr@noaa.gov Include [docket number and/or RIN number] in the subject line ofthe message.

* Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// www.regulations.gov.Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

e Fax: 206-526-6736, Attn: Becky Renko.

* Mail: D. Robert Lohn, Administrator, Northwest Region, NMFS, 7600 Sand Point Way NE, Seattle, WA 98115-0070, Attn: Becky Renko. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Becky Renko at 206-526-6110. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This action is authorized by regulations implementing the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan (FMP), which governs the groundfish fishery offWashington, Oregon, and California.

The regulations at 50 CFR 660.323(a) establish separate allocations for the catcher/processor, mothership, and shore-based sectors ofthe whiting fishery. For 2006, the 232,069 mt commercial harvest guideline for whiting is divided with the catcher/ processor sector receiving 78,903 mt (34 percent); the mothership sector receiving 55,696 mt (24 percent); and the shore-based sector receiving 97,469
mt (42 percent).

Regulations at 50 CFR 660.373(b) 'describethe primary season for each
sector. The primary season for the shore-based sector is the period(s) when the large-scale target fishery is conducted, and when "per trip" limits

are not in effect. Before and after the primary season, per-trip limits are in effect for whiting.

The best available information onJuly 31, 2006, indicates that81,159 mt had been taken through July 27, 2006, 2006, and that the 97,469 mt shore-based allocation will be reached by August 2, 2006. This Federal Register document

announces that the primary season for the shore-based sector ends on August 2, 2006, and a 10,000-lb (4,536-kg) trip limit is imposed. Per-trip limits are for vessels using large or small footrope trawl gear and are intended to accommodate small bait and fresh fish markets, and bycatch in other fisheries. To minimize incidental catch of Chinook salmon by vessels fishing shoreward ofthe 100-fm (183-m) c'ontour in the Eureka area, at any time during a fishing trip, a limit of 10,000 lb (4,536 kg) ofwhiting is in effect yearround, except when landings ofwhiting

are prohibited.

NMFS Action

For the reasons stated above, and in accordance with the regulations at 50. CFR 660.323(b)(3), NMFS herein

announces:

Effective 6 p.m. l.t. August 2, 2006, no
more than 10,000 lb (4,536 kg) of whiting may be taken and retained, possessed orlanded by any vessel

- participating in the shore-baseds.ector ofthe whiting fisbery, unless otherwise announced in the Federal Register. Ifa vessel fishes shoreward ofthe 100-fm (183-m) contour inthe Eureka area (430

-40'30' N. 

### lat.) atany time during a fishing trip, the 10,000-lb (4,536-kg) 

### 44590

HeinOnline -- 71 Fed. Reg. 44590 2006